I've never liked the idea that the media is supposed to abide by this made-up online norm against uncovering and making public the identity of individuals who do newsworthy things. That's kinda their job.
That said, fuck CNBC, it's obvious that their interests here aren't good faith reporting.
This could damage this person's life though and CNBC is doing it to try and intimidate people.
For me, it's the same idea that people arrested for something shouldn't have their mug shots and names plastered up on the news because they're not found guilty yet. People's anonymity is worth protecting.
I think there's a compelling public interest in knowing the identity of the person whose posting resulted in all of this. Had it turned out to be some hedge fund pig, folks here would be singing a very different tune about this.
So in reality they doxxed a normal person in order to intimidate them. If it was a hedge fund manager they probably wouldn’t have given his info out.
This. Remember back when people figured out who the Hoarse Whisperer was and the mainstream ghouls were freaking out about it? They'll protect their own, through and through.
You, the viewer, can't know that he isn't until you know who he is, though.
Again, CNBC's interest here is clearly not good faith, but I disagree entirely with this notion that because you post online anonymously that somehow that has implications for what the media can report about you when you take actions that are newsworthy.
I mean you can believe what you want but if you got doxxed somehow through your account and it put you, your friends, or your family in danger I think you'd be singing a different tune. That's all.
I just think that there's a public interest in knowing who DFV is. His actions are indisputably newsworthy and I think that uncovering the identity of people whose actions are newsworthy is a legitimate thing for journalists to do.
Journalists have to exercise judgment about how much to reveal all the time. When there's compelling public interest in the info - publish it. When the only effect of the revelation is harm to a person's privacy - STFU. Saying "the individual involved is a nobody and wishes to remain anonymous" is transparent enough when the person is really a nobody.
It's a "the enemy of my enemy is getting doxxed and doxxing is a problem in general" situation. If the guy was doing marketing and actually revealed his own ID - then the initial report was inaccurate. But in general the media is guilty of revealing too much about the enemies of the status quo and revealing too little about the status quo, so that's the point that matters to me, not this particular guy.
They can check whether the guy is hedge fund guy and not divulge his name and specific place of work in case that he isn't. Journalists write shit like "according to sources in bla-bla" and we are just supposed to trust them...
Yeah if CNBC came out and said "we checked and he's definitely not a hedge fund guy" nobody would believe them and they would be correct in their distrust.
You can reveal specific relevant background. I still don't understand what use would be for the reader to know the guy's real name. It just puts him at risk without helping anyone.
I've never liked the idea that the media is supposed to abide by this made-up online norm against uncovering and making public the identity of individuals who do newsworthy things. That's kinda their job.
That said, fuck CNBC, it's obvious that their interests here aren't good faith reporting.
This could damage this person's life though and CNBC is doing it to try and intimidate people.
For me, it's the same idea that people arrested for something shouldn't have their mug shots and names plastered up on the news because they're not found guilty yet. People's anonymity is worth protecting.
I think there's a compelling public interest in knowing the identity of the person whose posting resulted in all of this. Had it turned out to be some hedge fund pig, folks here would be singing a very different tune about this.
Sure and if my aunt had wheels she'd be a bike. But she doesn't, and he wasnt?
So in reality they doxxed a normal person in order to intimidate them. If it was a hedge fund manager they probably wouldn't have given his info out.
This. Remember back when people figured out who the Hoarse Whisperer was and the mainstream ghouls were freaking out about it? They'll protect their own, through and through.
You, the viewer, can't know that he isn't until you know who he is, though.
Again, CNBC's interest here is clearly not good faith, but I disagree entirely with this notion that because you post online anonymously that somehow that has implications for what the media can report about you when you take actions that are newsworthy.
I mean you can believe what you want but if you got doxxed somehow through your account and it put you, your friends, or your family in danger I think you'd be singing a different tune. That's all.
That's a risk that every one of us runs to varying degrees when we make noise online.
:cringe:
OK so then where's the line of who the media can report on and who they can't?
I would say if the person's found guilty of whatever they were accused of, if they've doxxed themselves, or I'd they're a public figure.
But I'm not media czar and this is pretty half baked.
Fair.
I just think that there's a public interest in knowing who DFV is. His actions are indisputably newsworthy and I think that uncovering the identity of people whose actions are newsworthy is a legitimate thing for journalists to do.
Yeah I mean this case specifically he doxxed himself. He did a interview with the WSJ and have his name & city so he's out there at this point.
I'm just speaking more of media in general.
Journalists have to exercise judgment about how much to reveal all the time. When there's compelling public interest in the info - publish it. When the only effect of the revelation is harm to a person's privacy - STFU. Saying "the individual involved is a nobody and wishes to remain anonymous" is transparent enough when the person is really a nobody.
This dude's a marketing professional who used social media to move the market significantly in his favor by influencing thousands of people.
I guess I don't see why his background and identity aren't relevant here. Seems weird to me for leftists to want to protect that guy in particular.
It's a "the enemy of my enemy is getting doxxed and doxxing is a problem in general" situation. If the guy was doing marketing and actually revealed his own ID - then the initial report was inaccurate. But in general the media is guilty of revealing too much about the enemies of the status quo and revealing too little about the status quo, so that's the point that matters to me, not this particular guy.
They can check whether the guy is hedge fund guy and not divulge his name and specific place of work in case that he isn't. Journalists write shit like "according to sources in bla-bla" and we are just supposed to trust them...
Yeah if CNBC came out and said "we checked and he's definitely not a hedge fund guy" nobody would believe them and they would be correct in their distrust.
Then why would you believe them when they say he's John Smith from Boston? It's not like you're going to check.
Why report anything? Hell, why even read?
You can report and read news. How is the name of a reddit user newsworthy? How is it useful information?
Lol he's not just any redditor, don't be disingenuous.
https://hexbear.net/post/78541/comment/839283
You can reveal specific relevant background. I still don't understand what use would be for the reader to know the guy's real name. It just puts him at risk without helping anyone.